Case 2401227/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Siddle v Mental Rabbit Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401227/2021
- Decision date
- 18 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Siddle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Ms K Siddle was employed under a verbal contract, with the terms recorded in an unsigned document sent to her. It found that she was entitled to wages at £14 per hour for a 40-hour working week, giving an annual gross salary of £29,120 and a daily gross rate of £79.78. Her employment began on 14 December 2020 and ended on 11 January 2021.
On that basis, the tribunal found the claimant’s claim for unauthorised deduction from wages well founded and successful. It calculated that she was owed 27 days' wages at £79.78 per day, totalling £2,154.08.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was due reimbursement of the £45 fee she paid to obtain a DBS check for the respondent. The respondent was ordered to pay £2,199.08 in total, made up of the wages sum and the DBS fee reimbursement.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages well founded. The award comprised 27 days' wages at £79.78 per day, totalling £2,154.08, plus reimbursement of a £45 DBS check fee. | Upheld | — | £2,199 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,199
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.